Hal Fan Hour

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Friday, 23 November 2012

Advice for the UNESCO OER Mapping Project

Posted on 15:02 by Unknown
Email written as advice to the UNESCO OER mapping initiative.

This is beginning to read and sound very much like the debates around learning object metadata of the 1990s. I know that approaches such as LRMI represent an improvement in that elements are aligned with schema.org data types. But that said, knowledge of the history would be useful, and I do recommend to people making suggestions to look at IMS and IEEE LOM as well as LRMI.

It would also be helpful (through probably not practical) to review the discussion surrounding these specifications. For example, below, we read a request for "technical requirements for using the material." This is better addressed by describing the resource format and specifications (eg., its mime type) rather than specifying application software. This is because software changes rapidly. Consider the requirements in IMS-LOM documents specifying that a resource is 'best viewed in Internet Explorer 3.0'.

If course, this discussion is centered around OER *repositories* and not only the resources themselves. Consequently, mappings will need to describe repository properties. Consulting OAI or DSpace specifications would be helpful here. Minimally, we would want API specifications for resource creation, reading, update and deletion, as well as classification systems and resource metadata specifications.

All of this is difficult to build from the ground up. It is a discussion that has occupied the field for almost two decades. I am thinking at this point that the OER initiative should be drawing from the experiences of OER repositories and repository indices that already exist. The most useful beginning of a needs project ought most probably to be a summary of the properties of existing repository indices, including the range of resources indexed, metadata fields used, and more.

For those specifically interested in resource metadata, rather than repository profiles, may I recommend my article 'Resource Profiles' http://www.downes.ca/post/41750 (I'm sorry to recommend my own work but it will keep this post a lot shorter). It suggests approaches for the following sorts of metadata:
- first party metadata, which is metadata specifically about the resource itself, eg., technical data, rights metadata, bibliographic data
- second party metadtata (sometimes called 'paradata') related to the use of the metadata, such as ratings, accesses, etc
- third party metadata, such as classifications, educational metadata (including things like curriculum, keywords, etc)etc.

Additionally, readers should take account of the desirability of linked data. For example, the use of strings to represent authors and publishers creates the possibility of ambiguity, error and duplication. Contemporary resource repositories, such as Google Scholar or academia.edu, maintain separate registries of authors, which are linked to resources (JSTOR doesn't, but should, as a search for au:"Stephen Downes" already returns results from a bunch of strangers). It would be worth contemplating linking authors and OERs to additional resources, such as publishers and institutions (many of these are already described by schema.org). Another argument in favour of linked data is that any string data will need to have several properties, including character encoding and language. So it's best to use strings sparingly.

All of the considerations above must also be mapped to a consideration of what people will actually do in the way of creating and using resource metadata. I recall a study by Norm Friesen, for example, examining the use of IEEE-LOM to index learning objects. Though the specification enables detailed educational descriptions, most people used only ten percent of the fields. Much of the metadata available will be minimal. Any mapping will need to contemplate listings using the most basic data: title, link (ie., URI) and description. Any system should attempt to automatically generate metadata (my own website automatically generates image metadata) and make good use of tags.

Also (November 30): With respect to the summary and the map initiative itself, I would like to make one key recommendation: that it be a ‘submit-once’ system.

Typically, OER data owners would employ a form or some interface to deposit content into the database that will eventually be used to produce the map. The result of this approach is that OER data owners must submit separately for each mapping initiative. Eventually they tire of this, and the result is incomplete data.

So I would ask that any such map also *export* its data in a machine-readable format (plain XML will do, as would JSON, an RSS or Atom Extension, or pretty much any structured representation) along with licensing that allows it to be harvested and reused (pick whatever license you want). This would allow an OER data owner to submit *once* and have the data available for any number of maps.

I would also recommend:

- a mechanism that allows the OER data owner to update or edit records already submitted, to they can stay current

- an export mechanism, or a stand-alone record-creator, so an OER data owner can create the structured representation and store it on his or her own website

- a mechanism whereby databases of OER data repository information can publish and harvest each other’s data, thus essentially enabling them to sync records, so all databases will contain all OER information, no matter which database the record was originally added to

In redundancy is reliability. In synchronization is strength. In distribution is durability. In structured representation is stability.

Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Blogs in Education
    Submission for a forthcoming STRIDE handbook for The Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU). See related handbooks here . What is a ...
  • Learning and Performance Support Systems
    This post is to introduce you to our Learning and Performance Support Systems program, a new $19 million 5-year initiative at the National R...
  • E-Learning: Générations
    ( English version ) Ces dernières années, j'ai travaillé sur deux grands concepts: d'abord, la théorie de l'apprentissage ...
  • E-Learning Generations
    ( version française ) In recent years I have been working on two major concepts: first, the connectivist theory of online learning, wh...
  • Open Educational Resources: A Definition
    The Definition Open educational resources are materials used to support education that may be freely accessed, reused, modified and shared b...
  • McLuhan - Understanding Media - Summary of Chapters 11-14
    My contribution to the Understanding Media Reading Group Chapter 11 McLuhan writes, in Chapter 11 of Understanding Media, that "The mys...
  • TTI Vanguard Conference Notes - 4
    Erin McKean, Wordnik The language is the Dictionary If you took the language, and you got rid of the dictionary, what would be left would be...
  • Progressive Taxation and Prosperity
    Responding to Justin Fox, editorial director of the Harvard Business Review Group, How big should a government be? in the Harvard Business ...
  • Bob Dylan in Moncton
  • International MOOCs Past and Present
    OpenLearning.com , a venture born out of the University of New South Wales ( UNSW ) in Sydney, Australia. Starting this week, you can begin ...

Categories

  • #change11
  • Connectivism
  • http://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gif
  • Shakespeare

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (68)
    • ►  December (1)
    • ►  November (5)
    • ►  October (6)
    • ►  September (7)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (18)
    • ►  March (8)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (7)
  • ▼  2012 (56)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ▼  November (7)
      • Free and Not Free
      • Suppose the Irvings Had Not Set Up Shop In Moncton
      • Advice for the UNESCO OER Mapping Project
      • A Pathway for Advancement
      • International MOOCs Past and Present
      • The Paradox of Democracy
      • Predators and Producers: Whither Flat World
    • ►  October (7)
    • ►  September (7)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (6)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (7)
  • ►  2011 (86)
    • ►  December (7)
    • ►  November (11)
    • ►  October (8)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (8)
    • ►  June (7)
    • ►  May (10)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (11)
    • ►  January (11)
  • ►  2010 (108)
    • ►  December (9)
    • ►  November (9)
    • ►  October (12)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (6)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (9)
    • ►  May (9)
    • ►  April (9)
    • ►  March (12)
    • ►  February (9)
    • ►  January (10)
  • ►  2009 (85)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  October (8)
    • ►  September (7)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (15)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (7)
    • ►  April (6)
    • ►  March (17)
    • ►  February (7)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2008 (94)
    • ►  December (5)
    • ►  November (7)
    • ►  October (7)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  August (16)
    • ►  July (11)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  May (6)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (7)
    • ►  January (14)
  • ►  2007 (3)
    • ►  December (3)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile